From: Julie Shea Sent: 30 November 2009 11:32 To: DC Secretaries Subject: FW: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (09/01557/F) -----Original Message----- From: publicaccess@cherwell-dc.gov.uk [mailto:publicaccess@cherwell-dc.gov.uk] Sent: 30 November 2009 09:37 To: Public Access DC Comments Subject: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (09/01557/F) PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (09/01557/F) "Richard Butt" has used the PublicAccess for Planning website to submit their comments on a Planning Application. You have received this message because you are the Case Officer for this application or because this is a designated mailbox for PublicAccess comments submissions. Comments were submitted at 30/11/2009 09:36:37 Application Summary ------------------- Application Number: 09/01557/F Address: Bishops End Burdrop Banbury Oxfordshire OX15 5RQ Proposal: Change of use from closed public house to dwelling Case Officer: Andrew Lewis Customer Details ---------------- Name: Richard Butt Address: College Barn Farm Colony Road Sibford Gower Oxfordshire Postcode: OX15 5RY Comments -------- Submission Type: Customer objects to the Planning Application. Comments: Ref: 09/01557/F Chief Planning Officer, Cherwell District Council. Bodicote Banbury Oxon 29 November 2009 The Bishops Blaize Inn Burdrop, OX15 5RQ Planning application 09/01557/F Town & County Planning Act 1990 The planning system should operate in the overall public interest. The planning system should not be used to assist private interests where such interests conflict with the public interest. Whatever the current owner paid for The Bishops Blaize in 2006 is a situation of her own making under the principle of caveat emptor. The planning system should not then be exploited by an applicant simply to gain planning permission for an alternative use which may enable her to recover her financial outlay. The public interest which should be the focus of the decision making is whether this rural service should be lost to the rural community. Once lost it is inconceivable that such facilities will be reinstated. The underlying purpose of policy S26 of the Non-Statutory Local Plan 2001 is therefore to ensure that existing village services are not lost to the community unless they are no longer financially viable or cannot be made financially viable. Having regard to the presumption for the retention of existing rural services - supported by national planning policy S26 of the Non-Statutory Local Plan 2001 (paragraph 2,6 and particularly 7), the onus must rest with the applicant to discharge the burden of proof that this village service is no longer viable or can be made viable. In the context of many rural services, including public houses, it should be recognised that viability - which although not defined- may be reasonably regarded as meaning the provision of a reasonable livelihood from the management of the business is to a large measure influenced by the character and attention of the proprietor. Put simply if a landlord of a public house fails to provide a proficient service to customers whether intentionally or to drive down the vitality of the business - or by sheer incompetence - it is inevitable that the business will deteriorate financially. The business report carried out by Taylors business surveyors dated 13th October 2005 stated that the Bishops Blaize was achieving reasonable levels of turnover and profitability and that the pub was presented to a good quality standard throughout. If a future sale was to be sought we would expect to see a good level of demand. I would submit to you that the current applicant for the redevelopment (some 4 years after the Taylor report) cannot provide cogent evidence that the Bishop Blaize would not be a viable enterprise if reopened as a Public House. During the early part of2009 a creditor of the owner and the applicant obtained an Order for Sale of the Bishops Blaize. The Pub was marketed and produced several interested parties prepared to purchase the property with a view to them reopening it as a Public House despite the fact that there is a considerable amount of water damage to the interior. (The order for Sale is currently suspended) The applicant recently submitted a previous planning application (09/01275/F ) for the provision of 4 letting bedrooms. The applicant withdrew the application on advice from planning officers. I would be surprised that the applicant would have made this application if the Bishop Blaize was not a viable proposition with or without the letting bedrooms. In conclusion the proposed redevelopment may serve a private interest but this consideration should be given very little weight when weighed in the balance with the circumstances from which the private interest has arisen-and fundamentally in the context with the harm to the local community. On a cumulative basis harm will be caused to the wider public in the rural areas if a low threshold of proof is placed upon the applicant to discharge the burden of proof. Independent evidence is available to demonstrate that the business was viable and had vitality prior to the purchase by the current owner in February 2006. The fact that evidence is to hand showing a demand to re-open this Public House speaks volumes as to its potential of ongoing viability. It is clear therefore that the applicant's proposal is against Policy S29 and contrary to national planning policy (PPS7) that seeks to retain rural services. I would remind you that the Unicorn public house at Great Rollright has recently been sold and after repairs will open as a public house after 20 years of being shut, thus once again demonstrating a demand by buyers for local hostelries. The application should therefore be refused. Signed Richard L M Butt PublicAccess for Planning. (c) CAPS Solutions Ltd.